I would like it if the detailed battles had more of the look and feel of 3D, sort of a turn-based version of Mad Minutes 'Take Command' series.

In fact, have the 'Quick Battle' option extend to a 'Detailed Quick Battle' choice. Where the AI sets up and runs both sides of the detailed battle. With 'pause' and 'rewind step' buttons to aid in players viewing replays.

It would be nice if changing containers may temporarily reduce the abilities and skills of both leaders and units.

Many times when changing your environment, you need time to fit in with the new crowd, get used to their ways and they to yours. Your efficiency may suffer during that transition. Once settled in though, your abilities begin to shine once more.

1. A scenario start option allowing generals to complain to their respective governors if they are underutilized. As an example, if R.E. Lee commands a division or anything less than an army. The governors in turn could let the player know their displeasure.

2. Option to get the raider and siege units displayed on their own military screens, instead of currently being on all of them.

3. When sorting by column, blank values show up last.

4. A scenario start option allowing leaders to possibly change their attributes upon promotion. Not all brigade commanders were suited for the larger positions of responsibility their promotions entailed.

I would like it if the detailed battles had more of the look and feel of 3D, sort of a turn-based version of Mad Minutes 'Take Command' series.

In fact, have the 'Quick Battle' option extend to a 'Detailed Quick Battle' choice. Where the AI sets up and runs both sides of the detailed battle. With 'pause' and 'rewind step' buttons to aid in players viewing replays.

Just a thought. Glad I don’t have to code it.

It's not just coding, but a ton of graphics work, too. This is only something we could do if we one day did a complete overhaul of FOF that involved a new engine. Something I'd love to do, but there are lots of other projects we'd do first, and it might not be economically feasible. (In other words, if it costs X thousand dollars to do the fancy graphics, and additional sales prompted by the fancier graphics do not bring in more than X it makes no sense to do so.)

1. A scenario start option allowing generals to complain to their respective governors if they are underutilized. As an example, if R.E. Lee commands a division or anything less than an army. The governors in turn could let the player know their displeasure.

2. Option to get the raider and siege units displayed on their own military screens, instead of currently being on all of them.

3. When sorting by column, blank values show up last.

4. A scenario start option allowing leaders to possibly change their attributes upon promotion. Not all brigade commanders were suited for the larger positions of responsibility their promotions entailed.

I like #1 and #4 in particular, and #3 seems like it should be doable. Programming #2 would take time away from other requests. Meaning, if we do another features patch, or one day produce and expansion or FOF2, there will be a finite limit to what we can add, and we'll have to go with what is in the most demand, or makes the most sense, or we ourselves had wanted to add previously but didn't have time for.

Thanks for your suggestions. It might still be a while before we do more with FOF, but here's to hoping they weren't made in vain!

I believe this can be done, using a slider bar under "Preferences" or another settings screen. Please look there.

Part of the problem might be that FOF was programmed 5+ years ago, when PC's weren't as powerful, so now your processor speed makes things move more quickly than was intended.

Thank you. I will look and see if I can find the ‘slowpoke’ toggle. I use the one for the Quick Battles, so I know at least one feature has it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar I would like it if the detailed battles had more of the look and feel of 3D, sort of a turn-based version of Mad Minutes 'Take Command' series.

Something I'd love to do, but there are lots of other projects we'd do first, and it might not be economically feasible. (In other words, if it costs X thousand dollars to do the fancy graphics, and additional sales prompted by the fancier graphics do not bring in more than X it makes no sense to do so.)

OK. I understand that not all wishes may come true. However, if I don’t ask, there is even less of a chance for it to happen. Who knows, maybe Mad Minute would be willing to collaborate with your company to integrate their tactical game into the strategic portion of FOF. Stranger things have happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R. Thanks for your suggestions. It might still be a while before we do more with FOF, but here's to hoping they weren't made in vain!

You are welcome. FOF is an enjoyable game, even without any additional features. I have full value for the money spent. As for the time between updates, have you considered starting something like GMT games ‘P500’ pre-order program? It seems to work for them, and I like the idea of customers being able to help the development of entertainment they enjoy.

The rationale is that we [the game designers] had to find some way to distinguish when two equally-ranked generals were in the same container, and that was as good as any.

I would like it better if precedence went by comparing each general’s respective Date Of Rank (DOR). With equal ranks, the individual promoted earlier gets the job. As I recollect, there were a number of political problems that presidents had to deal with when they promoted a promising leader over others who had both seniority in rank and out of DOR precedence.

Which leads to my next game request, that promoting a general out of precedence may cause political problems for the chief executive of the nation.

2. Expand the political section of the event tab so that governors report on reasons for all changes in their attitude, not just for impressment and leader rank. If a battle takes place in a state and that governor is offended, then list that item along with the attitude loss.

how about some random events that can be triggered if certain factors are in place. one example would be Griersons raid at Newton Station. No need to do it by sending such a small unit when it could be done by event. chance of success or failure for each event. Attack on US Whaleing fleet. Farragut (we need naval leaders) running the forts at N. Orleans and then having a fleet in the Mississippi. Alot of stuff could be added in to the delight or horror of the respective sides.

Some naval fight graphics. perhaps a newspaper page popup showing that a US blockade squadron caught a runner. I know its buried in the reports but that the problem, the reports have too much info on one loooong sheet. Perhaps break them up into pages Land/Naval/production/Political that each "leader" would read

build supply depot for Union. Confed cannot see til he sizes the city where it is. Its loss will effect the union forces in the area. can be damaged by "raiders' as well beyond their current actions. takes into account destruction of Pope's supply base during 2nd Manansass

I really do hope FOF II gets done. The current system will work with some tweaking and addition of some of the ideas and an upgrade of the tactical with your new tac version of the game (hint: more flags!).

THERE WILL BE ONLY 1 150th ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG and 2 years later the ONLY 150th Anniversary of the end of the US Civil War. What better time to release a game with fanfare???????

ORIGINAL: battlegroundvehicles how about some random events that can be triggered if certain factors are in place. one example would be Griersons raid at Newton Station. No need to do it by sending such a small unit when it could be done by event. chance of success or failure for each event. Attack on US Whaleing fleet. Farragut (we need naval leaders) running the forts at N. Orleans and then having a fleet in the Mississippi. Alot of stuff could be added in to the delight or horror of the respective sides.

Wouldn't Grierson's Raid be the effect from a Union 'Raider' unit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlegroundvehicles Some naval fight graphics. perhaps a newspaper page popup showing that a US blockade squadron caught a runner. I know its buried in the reports but that the problem, the reports have too much info on one loooong sheet. Perhaps break them up into pages Land/Naval/production/Political that each "leader" would read

I like the tab idea for reports.

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlegroundvehicles build supply depot for Union. Confed cannot see til he sizes the city where it is. Its loss will effect the union forces in the area. can be damaged by "raiders' as well beyond their current actions. takes into account destruction of Pope's supply base during 2nd Manansass

Okay, Why would the Union build something that only hurts them? Unless of course it is a required build (what purpose does it serve the owner?) for both sides.

Generally you can ignore supply in the game as long as your in a friendly province connected to another friendly province. I have played numerous games with no effect on supply as long as i have a hospital nearby to help. Supply, especially in the West, was very much vulnerable to attack and needed to be proteced and built up prior to a major advance. This does not occur in the game. You should have to have some type of supply depot, especially for the Union, that they would need before moving into a Southern area. The Union was very mindful of supplies and kept huge depots everywhere from outside Washigton to Tenn. The effects in the game of raiders appears pretty useless as far as i can see. Having a depot and having to protect it while advancing makes it harder on the Union to invade the South. Also gives the S. player a target to hit behind the Union lines stopping a major advance.

Events (such as a Grierson's raid) make the game more "alive". A monitor vs merrimac event might keep the Union from crossing the Potomac for a turn after due to fear from the merrimac affecting Union planning. A Grierson's raid is so small yet would have an effect on Conf. morale much as a Stuart raid would have on N. morale yet this is not in the game. Events bring life to a game and make it more interesting and throw in randomness.

Both sides should be able to capture a supply depot. This happened several times with major depots being captured/ransacked/destroyed or forced them to be moved which threw off an entire campaign. You should be allowed to launch attacks even with no depot but much higher attrition

Actually I think generals should have sort of a "natural" rank that applies to their stats as set out (which I think voting on was a mistake, but everyone is going to have different ratings there). If a general is not at that rank (or ranks in some cases) their ratings should suffer across the borad. Some could even suffer more than others. McDowell was bad at leading an army but served OK over a divison for example. Grant was great at corp and at army, Lee was poor at a corps level. Hood was brilliant at corps but outside of initiative his rating would plummet at army level. Maybe easier for them to have 4 sets of ratings, 1 for each star? not sure what would be fastest for programming.

I would like to see a leader game history. Something like what exists for the brigades, containing a record of the promotions, demotions, the units commanded, battles, acquisition and use of skills and so forth.